Hydrogenaudio Forum Rules

- No Warez. This includes warez links, cracks and/or requests for help in getting illegal software or copyrighted music tracks! - No Spamming or Trolling on the boards, this includes useless posts, trying to only increase post count or trying to deliberately create a flame war. - No Hateful or Disrespectful posts. This includes: bashing, name-calling or insults directed at a board member. - Click here for complete Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service

Mach-X i have had this debate so many times on shn simply test it and listen to what you hear; all those codecs are designed slightly differently and whether lossy or lossless do not come out quite the same....i know this is anathema to logarithm junkies [no disrespect intended] but in practice i hear them all as quite dofferent here is a paper on shortenYou may if you wish discount whay i say on the matter.... but i will simply say rip a track to flac wv tak tta and shorten and blind test people on various types of stereos... anything

When i do this shn is always the winner in fact shn on XMMS is the clearest sound i have ever gotHE-AACv2 [neroAacEnc libaacplus fdk-aac] fullfilling that role on the lossy side with SBR and all

i know for many this is like saying you prefer a mineral water over another .... i do not hear any of those as the same.... some are more muffled and other way clearer...some wider in sound some narrower... just been though all the aac codecs and they are very different too...

As lvqcl has pointed out to you, lossless is lossless. If different lossless codecs sound different to you for the same material, I suggest that the problem is with your setup and not with the codecs themselves.

I also doubt that you are testing different codecs blind, so are susceptible to expectation bias.

As lvqcl has pointed out to you, lossless is lossless. If different lossless codecs sound different to you for the same material, I suggest that the problem is with your setup and not with the codecs themselves.

I also doubt that you are testing different codecs blind, so are susceptible to expectation bias.

Nick i accept the purely mathematical view that they cannot be different

As regard testing blind that is so easy to set upplay in any order and grade then check AFTERWARDS what they were.... how can that not be a TOTALLY FAIR test

All these are different to my ears [that is my experience]

i equally accept that it is anathema to most "scientific/mathematical" people....

I therefore accept all views... and have probably no more to say on this

You can have whatever opinion you choose. The vast expanse of the internet provides many locations where you can report opinion as fact. However, if you choose to post on this forum AND report that one codec sounds better than another, you MUST show proof. Reading the Terms of Service would be a good start, especially #8.

Many use foobar2000 and the ABX component to run testing. As you seems to have your own easy method to a TOTALLY FAIR test, it may prove quite helpful to others if you explain it a little bit.

rip one track to all available lossless formats ; then play them all and rate them; describe how they feel to you [quality fullness etc etc]; run that with many people; of course no-one allowed to know what the codecs are

then see what the results are .... see if any pattern there

that seems a fair test does it not? can be done on your own or with multiple [better] listeners

not mathematics ; just ears...

my remark on shorten is my perception [i had not seen #8] if it is seen to be a problem on the site i am more than happy for

Double blind testing is required. You are not even close to a fair test. Might as well add a few pints of ale and call it a party It may be prudent to simply read up on:

Demand characteristicsplacebodouble blind

Does not have to be in reference to sound. Humans are subject to, and are quite delusional beings. Any review of standard research protocol will show how to attempt to control for artifacts that masquerade as facts.

For your own personal information, I would suggest setting up Foobar2000 for ABX and test your own ears and perception.

EDIT I do not want to further derail this thread. It is taking away from all the work you have done. You might ask a mod to alter your first post and and change to

QUOTE

shorten

and they could also remove the non EAC posts from the thread. If you choose to run some ABX testing with Foobar2000 you could post in a new thread.

I have the feeling that lately many new members unload their bollocks and violating our TOS before someone comes in to remind them. Seldom the claims stand corrected and these guys seem to feel smart for that.Isnīt there the possibility to move more of these posts directly to the recycler or even delete these members completely?

nice touch!!!!!!!!!!!!! [surely there must be a rule about insulting new members or any members]

know how to make people feel welcome

we get it you have been here longer and still have no mannerswhat have i done wrong exactly?spent 7 hours concocting a guideand i said "i think shorten is the best"i did not know about rule #8your remark is beyond rude

The problem is that you state that Shorten sounds better, but that is against common knowledge. The common knowlegde: As codecs are lossless (exact copies of each other/the original), they shouldn't sound different. You think else, that isn't wrong of course, but according to the terms of service you have to prove it. Usually this is done by a so called ABX-test, which is similar to the testing you propose, but automated. You can find more about it here.

So what was wrong was you claiming that Shorten sounds different without proving it, while common knowledge says it shouldn't.

I don’t know why your completely illogical and unsubstantiated (read: indefensible) claims – which add insult to injury by claiming to understand the simple underlying mathematics but then implying that your auditory system can somehow transcend them – were left open to discussion, but unless anyone else has something actually constructive to add to this thread, I’m happy to put this to the same Recycle Bin where all other placebo-based fairytales go.

This is an international forum. English is oftentimes a secondary language. Sometimes words, paragraphs, one's thoughts are misunderstood. Same thing with emoticons. I believe that is all that has happened here. In other words, nothing to see and until someone shows otherwise, I believe it is safe to say lossless be lossless.

EDIT: Some may of took your 'cool' and 'dry' additions to words to imply attitude you may / may not of intended.